Jump to content

Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

{{English, Scottish and British monarchs}} is a more relevant template than {{Pictish and Scottish monarchs}} at this article because Henry VII (her great-grandfather), Henry VIII (her great-uncle), Edward VI (her putative fiance) and Elizabeth I (her rival and jailor) are all important to her story while the Pictish monarchs are of no relevance. It is also been used on this article for a long time, including the entire time this article has been featured, and per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD, the longstanding template should be retained until consensus changes. DrKay (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your rationale is illogical, you appear to be confusing a monarchs template with a "see also" section. The Scottish monarchs template, which indeed does include indistinguishable Pictish monarchs, covers all Scottish monarchs including Mary, Queen of Scots, and as you can see from other articles is used for Scottish monarchs on Wikipedia. The purpose of your edit warring on this topic appears to be to make Mary an exception to this. The British template is anachronistic, I don't understand why you would want it in this article. British nationalism maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.64.116 (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Do edits like this[1][2][3] strike you as those of a British nationalist? My motives are purely neutral and pedagogic. DrKay (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that it is hight time to discuss this rather than this constant flip-flopping but you've both beaten me to it. I'm not taking a side in the matter but indeed, per WP:BRD, can we leave it as it is currently , i.e. with Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs in place while any discussion is being carried out? IP editor, please keep it civil and don't throw out accusations; you are the one who has changed a long-standing aspect of the article so if you keep reverting before consensus to change, you will be the warring party. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I explained why the template is wrong. What else is there to discuss? Why the fuck would you use a British template for Scottish monarchs? Why the fucking fuck would Mary be the sole pre-union monarch to use a British template? Oh, that's right, nationalism.
No, my bad, Kay removed the N. Irish flag from another article. Also I forgot, Mary had diplomatic relations with Elizabeth I of England. Makes total sense, you should put the Danish and Polish monarchs in the template too. We'll have a giant Mary template instead of the see also section other articles have.
Stop being prats just because you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.64.116 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
IP, please take heed and discuss as requested or this will not end well for you. You may have a case but swearing in lieu of expounding it only harms your credibility. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I swore AND expounded. It is possible to do both in the post-Kindergarten world, as you can see above. It is also possible of course to whine about naughty boy language in lieu of expounding responses. Is that the plan? 80.44.64.116 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Likewise it's possible to expound whilst picking off your toes with a revolver but rather distracts everyone from the debate. For what it's worth: WP:CIVIL and reverting might still allow you to to make your case. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
If you are going to have a grown up discussion, I suggest you get on with it. 80.44.64.116 (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Still waiting for an explanation as to why this is the correct template. So far the most popular explanation is "consensus"; i.e., in layman's terms, "I don't have a reason, but here's some horseshit for you". 80.44.64.116 (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The IP will be waiting for at least a week, which is for how long they have just been blocked. Perhaps now a more reasoned discussion can take place. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 04:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there any reason both templates can't be included? They present different information, relevant to different extensions of Mary's role in history, and there's no rule against multiple navboxes. FourViolas (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

How odd, I was thinking the same thing. :) She is listed in both templates. Unless she is removed from one of them, I agree that both should probably be there. --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 04:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
For what reason is Mary to be the only Scottish monarch prior to 1603 using the British template? Why would any Scottish monarch use the British template for that matter? 89.243.207.209 (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
IP, the topic is still being discussed. Do NOT change the template until consensus is reached here. Which may take hours. Or days. We are not in a hurry. Leave it as it is, talk things through. But if you change it, you will get blocked. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 04:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
For what reason is Mary to be the only Scottish monarch prior to 1603 using the British template? Why would any Scottish monarch use the British template for that matter? 89.243.207.209 (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Because, reasons. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 04:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I am requesting the page be semi-protected, so we can discuss rather than edit-war. Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 04:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Fine idea. Reasons: Mary Stuart was a monarch of one of the kingdoms in the set {England, Scotland, Britain}. These countries have a closely interrelated history, so it would be useful to allow readers to navigate from here to other English, Scottish, and British monarchs' articles. Same goes for other Scottish and Pictish monarchs, as readers might be here to learn about Scottish history, and same goes for France. Thank you for refraining from expletives; as you may have noticed, they don't help your cause. FourViolas (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Would agree that there may well be a case for the inclusion of both but am interested to hear further views on the matter, hopefully without sweary distractions from the matter at hand now. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've indicated to the blocked editor that their comments might be allowed to stand while their blocked but definitely won't be if they attack other editors. If they persist, I will semi-protect this talk page. --NeilN talk to me 14:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hope this isn't rude to anyone involved, but this seems like a big edit-war-fueled nonissue. Just as it is reasonable to expect readers to come to this page in the process of learning about historical English and Scottish monarchs and about historical queens and dauphines of France, it is reasonable to expect that readers might be researching monarchs of Scotland from a different period. Navboxes are indeed meant to be like unified, replicable "see also" sections. The guideline is WP:NAVBOX; all four navboxes seem to more or less fit the five criteria, none much better than the others, and I really don't see why this is worth edit-warring over. Can we just add both? FourViolas (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Added {{Pictish and Scottish monarchs}}. Revert if further discussion is warranted. FourViolas (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Last letter...

I noticed that the National Library of Scotland has released some nice, copyright free images of Mary's final letter on their Flickr photostream, here [4] - might be of interest for the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Name in Scots and Gaelic

Maybe we need her name in Gaelic and Scots.And what is her full title used in Scotland and France? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.16.171.24 (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Mary Queen of Scots or Mary, Queen of Scots?

I could not help noticing that most books in the References and Further reading sections call her Mary Queen of Scots, without the comma, yet this article calls her Mary, Queen of Scots. What am I missing? Surtsicna (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 19 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved DrStrauss talk' 18:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


Mary, Queen of Scots → Mary Queen of Scots – My inquiry got no response for three weeks, and I believe this issue deserves attention. A majority of works cited in this article and a majority of those listed for further reading call her Mary Queen of Scots, without the comma. John Guy, Antonia Fraser, Alison Weir and Jenny Wormald, Mary's biographers who are invoked even in the article text, name her Mary Queen of Scots. This is not to say that the present title does not request a widespread usage, but that another form is preferred by historians and might be more common altogether. Surtsicna (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox

Mary
Queen of Scots
Portrait by François Clouet, c. 1558–1560
Reign14 December 1542 – 24 July 1567
Coronation9 September 1543
PredecessorJames V
SuccessorJames VI
RegentsJames Hamilton, 2nd Earl of Arran
(1542–1554)
Mary of Guise
(1554–1560)

There's more then one Mary Stuart but only one Mary I of Scotland. It's best to use Mary I at the top of the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There's more than one "Mary I" so that argument makes no sense. I prefer the option opposite, removing both the surname and the numeral and showing the usual name used for her. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Isn't it obvious who this article is about? How would folks be confused with Mary I in the infobox heading. We use Catherine II at the article Catherine the Great, we use Frederick II at the article Frederick the Great, for examples. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
By that very same token, why would they be more confused by "Mary Stuart"? There are multiple Mary Is as much as multiple Mary Stuarts and "I" is not part of her name. And please have patience while this discussion is still under way. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm in favor of using Mary I & you're against it. We're not going to agree on this topic, so it's best we let others weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm addressing the obvious inconsistency in your argument, not which term should be used. What you say above may be an indication of your own inflexibility of mind but don't ascribe the same to others. I'm always open to debate so please don't warn me off. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

From the point of view of consistency, I think it is more acceptable to use "Mary I". Personally, I think the article should have remained at "Mary I of Scotland" where it was for many years, because now the title of the article is in conflict with whatever goes in the Infobox. Deb (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That seems to be an argument for saying "Mary, Queen of Scots" in the infobox because then it would be consistent with the article title. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
No, I think that would be awful. "Mary I of Scotland" as an article title would be more consistent with other article titles, but "Mary I" is more consistent with other infoboxes. Deb (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Execution

From where did the reports arise that her lips still moved after her head was detached? e.g. Washington Post Were these contemporary or merely later invebtions? Are they worthy of any mention, if only to dispel? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Queen of Scots

Why were Scots monarchs, James, King of Scots, Mary and others, called King (or Queen) of Scots, and not King (or Queen) of Scotland? --Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Good question. I'm not sure of the answer, but they are not the only monarchs to do so. The current Belgian King and Queen are not known as "King and Queen of Belgium", but as "King and Queen of the Belgians". Similarly, the now deposed Greek Royals were called "King and Queen of the Hellenes", not "King and Queen of Greece". I suppose it shows their ties to their people, rather than the land. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Because that was their title! This is quite common - the Kings of France remained "King of the French" on their coins until the 18th century. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Scotland was not its own country at first, it just had monarchs ruling over it's people.Little Frog (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Article Ownership by Dr Kay and some editors

It appears that Dr Kay and some editors are acting as if they own this article not allowing any major change by any editor. A lot of vital information are missing in this article - Ex（the association pact with her son whose failure contributed to her execution. Paulet her last jailor was simply removed as not belonging to this article. The big question is there an ownership in this article, is this compatible with Wikipedia rule. Regards Guizotthehistorian (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This is your first edit to this article or it's talk page? And you've been an editor only since November 2017, with a total contribution of 16 edits? How have you managed to come to this conclusion? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I came to exactly the same conclusion and I am a more experienced editor. Fully cited content that I had added, paraphrased from content published by the Smithsonian Institution, was arbitrarily deleted. The comment was that it sounded like content that a tabloid would publish is not valid. The Smithsonian publications are not tabloids, nor are the other sources that I had cited. And Guizo makes a good point: Paulet then disappeared entirely from the article.
If part of new content should be deleted, other Users should certainly do so, but why delete every single word?
Of course, I am not surprised, since every word of every bit of content I had added to another article about a UK history topic was also deleted. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the primary content that I had added; it was deleted in its entirety, with this comment: this is an encyclopedia not a tabloid | articles should be written in the style of encyclopedia entries not as newspaper stories
Note the sources: Smithsonian magazine and History of Parliament. Not tabloids.
  From summer 1584 to spring 1585, Mary was housed at an inland locations (Wingfield and later, Tutbury), under the charge of Sir Ralph Sadler.http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/sadler-sir-ralph-1507-87 During that time, Elizabeth and her supporters were particularly nervous about Mary's plans against the queen, as letters from that era confirm. In a letter from Walsingham, Sadler was instructed to guard Mary more closely and to restrain her liberty. There was "a tangible, palpable sense of heightened levels of fear among Elizabeth’s government and ministers about her safety in the midst of the danger posed by Mary Queen of Scots, who for many Catholics was a figurehead," according to Andrea Clarke of the British Library. A 1584 letter from Elizabeth reminded Mary that she was the author of her own misfortune. "You know full well why you’re in the situation that you’re in," Clarke summarizes the content. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/these-letters-tell-inside-story-mary-queen-scots-imprisonment-180967762/#MvPAsewYwqS5dQB8.99

Peter K Burian (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You are indeed a vastly more experienced editor, Peter, and from what you say there seems to be a case to answer. I must admit I can't see anything much wrong with that passage. I'm still rather intrigued by the conclusion reached so rapidly by new editor Guizotthehistorian. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Martinevans123. I will start a new Talk item: Need support to include this content. In the past, I have not gotten much support from editors on another article where content was deleted by the same User, but perhaps I will now. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

References

A simple study of the history of the article shows that Dr Kray and some editors are not allowing any major changes. Guizotthehistorian (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You seem remarkable astute for a new user. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know who Guizotthehistorian is; he also left a note on my Talk page. His User name shows up in red when I view it so I cannot find any information about him. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Not astute friends, simply the article has not changed for many years in a significant way. The article is good but it is not perfect Guizotthehistorian (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been here 11 years and I have yet to find any one that is. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree so let release this article from captivity ; why don’t you write a consensual test here about the last content.Guizotthehistorian (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Need support to include this content

A few days ago, I had added this paragraph, fully cited. Every word was deleted. The rationale stated: this is an encyclopedia not a tabloid | articles should be written in the style of encyclopedia entries not as newspaper stories

Do note the sources that I had cited, not tabloids. If some of the paragraph has inappropriate style, we could quickly revise that. 

    From summer 1584 to spring 1585, Mary was housed at an inland locations (Wingfield and later, Tutbury), under the charge of Sir Ralph Sadler.http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/sadler-sir-ralph-1507-87 During that time, Elizabeth and her supporters were particularly nervous about Mary's plans against the queen, as letters from that era confirm. In a letter from Walsingham, Sadler was instructed to guard Mary more closely and to restrain her liberty. There was "a tangible, palpable sense of heightened levels of fear among Elizabeth’s government and ministers about her safety in the midst of the danger posed by Mary Queen of Scots, who for many Catholics was a figurehead," according to Andrea Clarke of the British Library. A 1584 letter from Elizabeth reminded Mary that she was the author of her own misfortune. "You know full well why you’re in the situation that you’re in," Clarke summarizes the content. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/these-letters-tell-inside-story-mary-queen-scots-imprisonment-180967762/#MvPAsewYwqS5dQB8.99

Do you support including some of this new information? Peter K Burian (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I had also added the same paragraph to the Sir Ralph Sadler article, because that one did not mention Sadler's charge of Mary. There, a Master Editor IV revised it: changing a single word. On January 11: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Sadler&action=history ... Remove duplicate word "and"

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I support adding the material specially Paulet and Sadler. Guizotthehistorian (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: I did not notice that this was also deleted.
  Paulet remained her keeper until Mary's execution at Fotheringhay Castle on 8 February 1587 and was present at that event.http://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/560107

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I oppose adding this content for the reason given: it is written in a different voice or different register than the rest of the article, employing an inappropriate journalistic tone instead of being written in the style of an encyclopedia summary. Much of the content is also repetitive of material already covered in the article and the rest of it introduces material that is irrelevant. The article is about Mary not a modern librarian, who does not deserve any coverage, let alone two sentences. DrKay (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Revise to read as follows, deleting the librarian:
  From summer 1584 to spring 1585, Mary was housed at an inland locations (Wingfield and later, Tutbury), under the charge of Sir Ralph Sadler.http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/sadler-sir-ralph-1507-87 During that time, Elizabeth and her supporters were particularly nervous about Mary's plans against the queen, as letters from that era confirm. In a letter from Walsingham, Sadler was instructed to guard Mary more closely and to restrain her liberty. An 1584 letter from Elizabeth reminded Mary that she was the author of her own misfortune. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/these-letters-tell-inside-story-mary-queen-scots-imprisonment-180967762/#MvPAsewYwqS5dQB8.99
Any article that is written by numerous editors has some instances of "different voice or different register". Deleting the librarian eliminates that from this paragraph.

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It's still repetitive: we already know she was held at Tutbury and Wingfield. We already know she was held in strict custody. The addition adds minutiae only; it adds nothing of value to a summary article. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I want to add is it possible to ignore Paulet her last jailor. The association pact with her son in the 1580s is not present in the article although it is mentioned by all her biographies. ( Antonia Fraser have a whole chapter about this subject).Guizotthehistorian (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Paulet is in the article. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sadler is not mentioned plus this addition is interesting because it concerned the plot section which is relatively short in spite that it concerned 20 years of her adult life; while other periods contained a lot of uncessary information. Also why her physical look is present in her youth period and not in the plot section which concerned the last 20 years of her life . Plus the association pact with her son. I don’t want to add anything to this article let other editors do it but please release this article from captivity. Guizotthehistorian (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sadler's name appears six times. DrKay (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sadler is mentioned when he was ambassador to Scotland and when she was a baby not as her jailer in 1584. Also where is the problem if Paulet is mentioned twice or more , he is her jailor for the last 3 years in her life.Guizotthehistorian (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC) I think Dr Kay is in the minority’s here at least 2 editors don’t share her opinions.Guizotthehistorian (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A question for DrKay , are you ready to allow a paragraph about the association pact with her son James in 1583, a major event in her life.Guizotthehistorian (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Again it seems there is at least two opinions against DrKay opinion.Guizotthehistorian (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be useful to know why you are so obsessed by me. Perhaps if you told us which of your prior accounts I have blocked or which of your edits I reverted, it would cut short the time necessary to investigate your complaint? DrKay (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems you are obsessed with yourself ; is Peter also obsessed by you, he said even any major changes on a lot of UK History is blocked by you; we only want with your help to make this article better. Not to refuse to make any major changes for months if not years. Again do you agree to include the Pact of Association between Mary and her son James in the 1580s which played a major event in her life.Guizotthehistorian (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

If you (or indeed Peter) think that DrKay has undue ownership of multiple articles, then you should raise that complaint, with appropriate evidence, over at WP:AN/I. I think you'd be well advised just to argue the case here for specific additions which you think would improve the article, together with reasons why. Just an idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually great idea, I asked him a question about adding information about a major issue who is missing the association of Mary and her Son twice and I’m still waiting for an answer. Guizotthehistorian (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm under no obligation to comment on an issue with which I am not involved and never have been. I still do not understand why you are focusing your attention on me. DrKay (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok I will believe you in good faith, I ‘m adding the information about the pact of Association to the article ; hope you have a positive attitude. Guizotthehistorian (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Edward VIII, if anyone is interested
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for your comment, Martinevans123; I know from past experience with Edward VIII that it is impossible to get more than one or two other Users involved in any debate on certain UK history articles where one User deletes any and all new (fully cited) content that was added by someone else. There are several Talk items about that at Edward VIII. Frankly, like others, I have given up. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, your comment here suggests you may have not have yet totally given up. I'm sorry, but I'm more of an Edward II man myself. My comment above was trying to suggest we just concentrate on what might be missing in this article rather than constructing a half-cocked warm-up to a formal AN/I complaint? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
You mean apart from the fact that what you'd written was totally wrong? DrKay (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the content I had added to the Edward VIII article; it was also fully cited. And the entire content was arbitrarily removed, not modified to solve some problem but deleted. The sources were highly reliable: 

  Hitler had considered Edward to be friendly towards Nazi Germany and thought that Anglo-German relations could have been improved through Edward if it were not for the abdication. Albert Speer quoted Hitler directly: "I am certain through him permanent friendly relations could have been achieved. If he had stayed, everything would have been different. His abdication was a severe loss for us."Speer, Albert (1970), Inside the Third Reich, New York: Macmillan, p. 118
 Several historians' research has led them to conclude that the refusal to allow Edward to marry was part of a pretext for removing a king https://books.google.ca/books?id=3H3iDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT133&dq=king+edward+viii++coup+to+remove+king&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcto2jsJzYAhUC_WMKHVBpCJ4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=king%20edward%20viii%20%20coup%20to%20remove%20king&f=false with inconvenient sympathies toward the unemployed or Nazi Germany" as contended by the authors of The Monarchy and the British Nation, 1780 to the Present.https://books.google.ca/books?id=WNI_cx0J5qIC&pg=PA225&dq=king+edward+viii++abdication++establishment+to+remove+king&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiixODqrpzYAhUN1GMKHT1gAJ4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false, p=225

Peter K Burian (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you both discuss this, if necessary, at Talk:Edward VIII ? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)
Oh, yes, we discussed it at great length there, but the other User raised the issue here. But I will not continue to discuss Edward in these Talk pages. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)
You were the one who brought up Edward VIII actually. You have once again posted rubbish at this talk page, and completely ignored the proven fact that the content was incorrect and misrepresented a source. Please stop trying to pollute wikipedia with your own fantasies. DrKay (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

::Rubbish? I posted rubbish? I find that to be insulting.

It was DrKay who claimed that I had posted incorrect information on the Edward VIII article.
   You mean apart from the fact that what you'd written was totally wrong? DrKay (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
To prove that the content I had posted at Edward VIII was accurate and fully cited, I also posted that content in my reply. Granted, I should not add content from another article on this talk page, and I apologized for that, but to call it rubbish? Peter K Burian (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The final sentence of your addition is wrong and rubbish. It is the opposite of the what the source says. I have proven that in the diff. DrKay (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph in plots about a major missing information in the Article about the pact of Association between Mary and her Son James with all of its international ramifications; I also mentioned the Catholic League in France who was dominated by Mary Cousins the Guise who where preparing the invasion of England with Spain. This information source is Antonia Fraser who have a whole chapter about this subject. I hope Dr Kray attitude will be positive and prove there is no ownership. Regards Guizotthehistorian (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Well Guizotthehistorian, the content you added my be valid but the citation needs to be fixed. It does not lead to the book as you had (apparently) planned. Do so quickly, to prevent complaints about that. I fine-tuned the sentence structure for you. The part about James proceeding without his mother also needs a citation to a source who discusses that aspect. Add that back in after you find a suitable source and add the new citation. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Peter I used the 1985 edition of the book, that’s valid as much as the 1994 edition of Fraser; the pages are differents for each edition; it is the same chapter 23 . Anyway you did put the 1994 edition citations which is good. Regards.

Guizotthehistorian (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good! Guizotthehistorian Peter K Burian (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you DrKay for your positive attitude, you built a great article here . I promise you to discuss any change here. Guizotthehistorian (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC) Guizotthehistorian (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Calendar issue

In checking sources for the article, I found some that give Mary's execution date as 18 February while a majority give 8 February. The disparity is explained in the article Adoption of the Gregorian calendar--Protestant England adopted the "new" calendar about 170 years after its adoption by the Catholic countries. So I presume travellers moved back 10 calendar days when crossing to France in 1587, and forward 10 days on returning to England. So am I right that the execution was held on 18 Feb (old or Julian calendar) which translates to 8 Feb (new Gregorian)? Bjenks (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it's the other way around. As explained in the article, all dates in this article before 1752 are Old Style. It is 8 February in Old Style and 18th in New Style. DrKay (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry

While I appreciate Daduxing's efforts, I neither agree with his or her changes to the ancestry chart nor with his or her attitude. It is the user propising a change who should gain a consensus, not the person reverting to a previous, stable version, per WP:BRD. I did provide a reason for reverting the edit. The reason is that the template should be easy to read, with lines of descent straight wherever possible and crossing other lines as little as possible. The Stuarts should be on one side of the template and the Tudors on the other. The unnecessarily increased number of lines of descent crossing each other, with Tudors appearing between two Stuart branches, made the template an illegible mess. If the chart cannot be understood at the first glance, it fails its purpose. Surtsicna (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The earlier version does seem easier to read because it has more straight lines, and it does make sense to have the Stewarts all one one side and the Tudors on the other rather than the Stewarts coming in on both sides, crossing over the Tudors. The earlier version also uses about 1.2kb less of code. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Surtsicna 1) There are only 2 places where a line is crossing another one. The same in both versions. There is issue here.
2) If by the "lines" you are referring at this line:,----'. That's a more complex explanation, but in a nutshell, because of the technical reasons.
This charts are better displayed when the boxes are vertically aligned. If not, depending on the size (inches) of the monitor/display and the browser used, you could have undesired rendering. In this case: like with the boxes of "Mary, Queen of Scots"; "Elizabeth Hamilton"; "James III" (etc) where the connecting line (above/below) is on the left side of the box and not in the middle as normal.
Second, as with above mentioned boxes, the borders doesn't fit the text. You have the borders of the boxes bigger than the text, with undesired empty spaces. This creates a visual discomfort, and for the same reason, the boxes are not aligned. The same with the boxes of "Margaret Tudor", "Margaret Douglas", etc.
Sure this depends on the size of the display/monitor and the browser. Firefox displays better than Chrome, because of the way in what Chrome is breaking the text lines making some boxes bigger than others (compare "Henry VIII of England" with the other boxes). Another visual defect (this can also be controlled by inserting some break-line (<br>) to control where a line should break)
3) Those borders are too thick and this is distracting the attention from the informations that really matters (the text and the connecting lines). I consider that this should be dealt with anyway
4) The only valid argument here is that you designed it to be the Tudors on the right and the Stuart on the left. But now depends of what you choose: This or a proper display that can be rendered well on different devices/screens.
5) But don't tell that my chart can't be read because that's a nonsense. My chart is visually better, orderly, not chaotic as the other version. --Daduxing (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't look at these charts much, and I wouldn't come down firmly on one version or the other. However, I don't see Daduxing's version as being an improvement on what was there before. Deb (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Why Deb? What's the reason? --Daduxing (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it looks any better and I don't think it's any easier to follow. Obviously this is going to be a subjective comment, but that's just how I see it. If you forced me to express a preference, I think I would go for the original precisely because there is more empty space so the boxes look less cluttered. (And I use Chrome.) Deb (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please insert this image of Mary, Queen of Scots in the article?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.173.127.193 (talk • contribs)

I don't see where it would naturally fit and the number of images was just reduced to avoid over-crowding. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe in a small gallery at the bottom of the article, joining other images? What use is of the images if no one is going to see them? Maybe I can do it? But I require authorizing from... you?

Galleries are generally discouraged not always encouraged. It's particularly unlikely that one would be considered suitable if it contained only a single image. But perhaps you could explain what this image is and why you think it's so important? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Galleries are NOT "generally discouraged" AT ALL - I'm amazed people still trot out this hoary myth. WP:GALLERY used to read that way until about 2008, but it was talking about gallery-only "articles", which used to be prevalent. They have been very common in FAs on visual subjects for years. If "the number of images was just reduced to avoid over-crowding" as Celia Homeford tells us, then a mini-gallery of one or two rows is probably a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
The guideline does say 'Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject; avoid similar or repetitive images'. I'm not seeing that this particular image is telling us anything different from the portraits already in the article. However, it may be worth considering restoring the gallery of coat of arms that was in the article before; that was showing information (on how her coat of arms changed over the years) that is now lost. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
So I've now adjusted the offensive hoary myth. A mini gallery with one single image still doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. But hey, perhaps that's just a hoary myth. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Both unsigned IP ("joining other images") & I clearly envisaged a gallery with other pictures - say those recently removed. So what you're still doing is failing to grasp the idea. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for "still failing to grasp the idea". This thread is titled: "... please insert this image of Mary, Queen of Scots in the article?" The IP's (and your) suggestion looks to me like using a single non-notable image to shoe-horn in a whole new gallery. Maybe, in the case of historical coats of arms, as per Celia's suggestion, that would be a good idea. Except that the image here is not a coat of arms. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Late to the party: I don't see anything in this particular image that improves my understanding of her (and there are too many images already). It can be seen, as many others, in the commons category, is even the first of the 2nd group. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree it's not an especially vital portrait, but not at all that there are too many images. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello! It's the IP. And this is my response specially directed to Martinevans123 13:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC). I apologize in advance for the fact that English is not my first language and that even years after studying it so much I still don't comprehend many idioms (shoe-horn) and phrasal verbs (shoe-horn in) before grabbing a dictionary. But I will try my best to answer to what you're saying, which seems to me like:

1) That I want to insert a whole new gallery of images just for the sake of having this "non-notable" image exhibited, perhaps the other images actually being even less notable. YES & NO. While I do not deny that I personally LOVE that portrait of the Queen and that that is the only reason I want the image to be in the actual article, I think there are many valuable pictures of at least equal appraisal to the one in question.

2) That I want to insert a whole new gallery of images which will overcrowd the article. Well, I suppose galleries accomplish the opposite of overcrowding. Besides, if the image is so non-notable (just like so many others appearing in Wikipedia Commons), I think a gallery is the best idea, because they are not always clicked-on by users, who can easily scroll back and forth the pictures without paying much attention (or stare at the one that calls them the most) because they are mostly an addition to the article and not critical to it (like the images exhibited sideways of the text). I personally think it's enriching.

3) That I want make the image I support fit at all costs in a gallery. No, because as you mention the gallery is non-existent, which in turn suggests that the community hasn't found yet a lot of pictures valuable enough to be in the article, meaning that the images to be showcased in the new gallery would be of at least equal value to the one I'm endorsing.

4) That I want to insert the image I'm in favor of in order to trick everyone into wanting a whole new gallery, or my unspoken idea of such. Honestly no. But I like the idea that a whole new gallery would be included. Maybe a gallery only displayed at the user's will by clicking on the button "show".

Just imagine all those artists painting portraits to no end. If this Wikipedia committee decides more pictures of Mary Stuart (including the one presented by me) are not to be showcased, all of their hard work will be for nothing. And it will be your fault... collectively speaking.

I thereby urge this Wikipedia committee to provide for, in no time, a gallery of images, pictures and portraits, similar to the one contained in Wikipedia Commons, but much more compact in size, well concealed and encompassing much less pictorial representations regarding Martha...I mean, Mary Stuart, Queen of the Scots.

Thanks everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.173.127.193 (talk • contribs)

Ah right, collectively. For a moment I thought it was all my fault. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
There are two links in the article to galleries of images of her. Perhaps the problem is that they are tucked away right at the bottom of the article where hardly anyone will see them. I'd prefer to see them in the 'See also' section. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Good idea, Celia. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Height of "scaffold"

@DrKay: I've no intention of joining an edit dispute over this matter, but ask you to reconsider the logic of your peremptory ruling. The eyewitness drawing on the page clearly shows a perimeter railing fence around what Tomascon calls "a dais". Without starting a discussion of perspective drawing in the 16th century, I will suggest that such a fence would be at least four feet high, making the floor of the dais a maximum of four feet above the floor of the hall, conceivably necessitating "two or three steps" for a lady to ascend. If the dais floor height were a mere two feet, it would surely require at most one step to ascend. On acceptance of sources, I do not have either Fraser or Guy to scrutinise, but am very impressed by the contemporary 8-page "exhaustive report" of eyewitness Emanuel Tomascon. I ask you not to arbitrarily dismiss that plausible detail but at least to have the article acknowledge a disparity or conflict of respectable sources, please. Bjenks (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's silly to say "either two or eight feet high" when we do not need to say either. The picture speaks for itself. DrKay (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The picture can bear interpretation, but I agree there is no need to specify a height in the face of contradictory accounts. Lamartine's (1864) translated version gives "about two feet and a-half above the ground" but not sourced. Bjenks (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Queen of Scotland

A quick search confirms that Mary did use the title Queen of Scotland, which should then be in the infobox and succession box at the bottom ("by the Grace of God Queen of Scotland, [Queen] Dowager of France"). It is surprising that the article lacks a "Titles, style, and arms" section similar to the one at Mary I of England#Titles, style, and arms. Her coats of arms are currently prominently displayed in a random section, and the official titles she used throughout her lifetime are nowhere to be found. Apparently, in addition to the title Queen of Scotland, she also used the titles Dauphine of Viennois, Queen of France, [Queen] Dowager of France, and Queen of England and Ireland at different times. Is this not noteworthy? Surtsicna (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The arms are displayed next to where they are discussed in the text. DrKay (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Somebody changed it to Queen of Scots, but I changed it back. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I would like to see a section on what her titles were at different times. Arg Matey (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The title 'Queen of Scots' was an anachronism in the 16th century. It harked back to much earlier kings of Scotland (and of England) who were more often referred to as kings of a people rather than of the land they ruled. Mary's father wasn't known as James King of the Scots, so why is she known as Queen of the Scots? A bit of a mystery. Did Walter Scott perhaps invent it in the 19th century? He invented a lot of Scottish history. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.209.87 (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The article was originally at "Mary I of Scotland", but those of us who wanted to keep it there were outvoted. Deb (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

In Lamartine's book Mary Stuart (1864 translation) an appendix cites a 1587 Latin epitaph composed by a Dr Adam Blackwood, using the language "Mary Queen of Scots, widow of a king of France...The epitaph was fixed by her tomb and "soon after taken away". It is quoted in vol.2 of a 1725 work by Samuel Jebb. Bjenks (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Mary's descent from the Balliols

I have found that Mary was descended from Ada Balliol, John Balliol's sister(via her mother, Marie de Guise, whose mother, Antoinette de Bourbon, was a descendant of Ada Balliol), thus making her the first monarch of Scotland to be descended from both Bruces and Balliols. This can be added to the ancestry part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.64.240.54 (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

1) No Original Research, and 2) not without a Reliable Source. 50.111.51.247 (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

That's an interesting claim, but can you substantiate it? Antoinette of Bourbon's ancestry looks established from quite a while back, I don't see any likely Scottish connection. I once tried to look into the issue of who the Comyn/Balliol claimant to the Scottish crown would be nowadays, but this seemed to run into the sand. PatGallacher (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

A belated reply, but, if it helps, this is the purported line (starting from Ada, one of many sisters of John Balliol):
1) Ada de Balliol m. William Lindsay, parents of:
2) Christian Lindsay m. Enguerrand V, lord of Coucy, parents of:
3) William, lord of Coucy, father of:
4) Enguerrand VI, lord of Coucy, father of:
5) Enguerrand VII, lord of Coucy, father of:
6) Marie de Coucy, countess of Soissons m. Henry of Bar, parents of:
7) Robert of Bar, count of Marle, father of:
8) Jeanne of Bar, countess of Marle and Soissons m. Louis of Luxembourg, count of Saint-Pol, parents of:
9) Peter II, count of Saint-Pol, father of:
10) Marie of Luxembourg, countess of Vendome m. Francis, count of Vendome, parents of:
11) Antoinette de Bourbon, maternal grandmother of Mary I, queen of Scots
So far as I know, this line is not in doubt among serious genealogists; it appears some lands/titles were inherited upon this line. However, regardless of whether this line is correct or incorrect, I do not see what relevance it has on an article about Mary. I doubt she even knew about the connection, & even if she did, I know of no secondary sources where it is commented upon. While not exactly 'original research' (I stumbled across it on Wikipedia), I do not think it qualifies for inclusion either.

Murder of confessor

The insertion of this text by NoelveNoelve has been disputed and reverted by three editors: DrKay, Celia Homeford, and me. The problem is that it is not at all clear how the inserted information relates to the rest of the paragraph. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to imply anything, nor are readers meant to draw conclusions that are not found in reliable sources; see WP:OR. Furthermore, it is not clear how any of this relates to Mary; is it found in any of the biographies of Mary (see WP:PROPORTION)? Per WP:ONUS, the editor seeking to include this, NoelveNoelve, is supposed to gain consensus for the inclusion. NoelveNoelve has so far reverted the removal of this content 7 times. NoelveNoelve has reverted more than 3 times in the last 24 hours, thus breaking WP:3RR. I strongly suggest that NoelveNoelve self-revert and, while at it, also stop insulting other editors; otherwise I foresee a lasting block in near future. Surtsicna (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Main photo

The main photo displayed on this article is very deceptive in my opinion and it depicts Mary at a very young age (16). She died later on and is more thought of with the 1578 portrait (in an older sense). I wondered if anyone else thought it would be more appropriate to use the 1578 Hilliard portrait or c. 1560 widow portrait by Clouet. (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Birth date

8 December is not for sure the confirmed date - if anyone bothered to read Wormald’s book, she said it’s still clearly debated. I know most people use the feast day as proof for it being 8 December, but it’s still plausible considering 7 December was one day from it. The fact that one of Mary’s own supporters claimed the seventh can’t be ignored. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not ignored. It's in the article, where it's given due weight. DrKay (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Then why is it listed as just 8 December when either date is considered? It’s misleading Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmmnn. Looking at this again, User:Celia Homeford said in an edit summary 'only Knox says the 7th', but it's actually Lesley that says the 7th. I think we need to look at the balance of sources, and take our cue from them. How many sources say the 7th? How many say the 7th or 8th? And how many say the 8th? What dates are these sources, i.e. is modern scholarship more accepting of one date or the other? Perhaps we should list and see how many say one and how many the other? Looking at the range below, most ignore the 7th, not mentioning it at all. So, at the moment, I'm still thinking that per WP:PROPORTION it should be mentioned because it is sourced but it should be restricted to a footnote because it is not the predominant view. Promoting it from a footnote to the first line of the article body gives it too much prominence and undue weight. DrKay (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Whoops! Mea culpa. I did of course mean Lesley. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • 7th:
  1. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100137949
  • 7th or 8th:
  1. Jenny Wormald (1988) p.11
  2. Antonia Fraser (1994) p.13
  3. Alison Weir (1996) Britain's Royal Families p.243
  • 8th:
  1. Gordon Donaldson (1974) p.19
  2. John Hunter (1996) Mary Stuart p.5
  3. John Guy (2004) p.12
  4. Julian Goodare (2004) ODNB
  5. Alison Weir (2008) p.7
  6. Susan Watkins (2009) Mary Queen of Scots p.7
  7. Rosalind Marshall (2013) p.9
  8. Linda Porter (historian) (2013) Crown of Thistles p.289
  9. https://www.royal.uk/mary-queen-scots-r1542-1567
  10. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mary-queen-of-Scotland
  11. https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/elizabeth-i-mary-queen-scots
  12. https://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/int/hist/mary/factfile/index.shtml?factfile=timeline
  13. https://www.historyscotland.com/history/mary-queen-of-scots-was-born-on-this-day-in-scottish-history/
  14. https://www.rct.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Mary%2C%20Queen%20of%20Scots%20factsheet.pdf
Rosalind K. Marshall (Mary Queen of Scots: Truth or Lies, 2014) also says she became queen when 6 days old i.e. born on 8th. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Mary queen of scots descendants

To whom it may concern, Elizabeth 1 queen of Englands jealousy had her cousin mary murdered for power over scotland. Held her captive long enough to change laws to prove her plot against Elizabeth, so mary could be executed legally. This took 18.5 years of Mary being incarcerated . Religious zealots Roman catholics and protestants are guilty as well for Mary's execution by Elizabeth's court. Shame on you all. Stole Mary's treasure and hidden all these century's in New Scotland. Long live thee queen. By Mother Mary's son. Thomas Allen Tauberschmidt. ESQ. Great Great grandson of Mary queen of Scotland. Verified. All empowered by Mary's execution is cursed. 199.167.89.52 (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this helpful contribution. Deb (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
:-P Yes - it brought new knowledge to mankind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.34.67 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The irony here is that our present Queen is not a direct descendant of Elizabeth I but is directly descended from Queen Mary...--2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:1576:6851:2D46:9826 (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Bit out of date there.... Nobody is a direct descendant of ER I. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Mary I

Quick question…

Edited the infobox recently to include the ordinal I so that infobox was headed “Mary I”.

The edit was reverted.

I asked the editor responsible why, but they have not (yet) responded.

Given that there’s nothing in the MoS to suggest that the edit was wrong or inaccurate, I’m curious as to why the article would not be in keeping with others dealing with historical monarchs where the ordinal is included, even if they were/are known by a more common term, for example William the Lion shows “William I” and the lede states “sometimes known as William I”. (William of Orange being William II of Scotland, and his wife, Mary Stuart, Great-Great-Granddaughter of Mary I of Scotland, being Mary II of Scotland).

A quick Google search turns up several references to Mary, Queen of Scots as Mary I, including the government’s own ‘’National Records of Scotland’’; https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/learning/hall-of-fame/hall-of-fame-a-z/mary-queen-of-scots

(For those unfamiliar with the NRS, see here: https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/about-us )

Why would it not be appropriate for the infobox on this article, which itself states in the lede “also known as - Mary I of Scotland”, for the ordinal to be included?

Or should it be the case that the infobox of other articles, for example Mary I of England, who in that instance may be better known as “Mary Tudor” or “Bloody Mary”, have the ordinal removed from the infobox?

Confused as to the lack of a consistent approach…

2A00:23C6:B808:7701:7579:5088:E1FC:DF5C (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I think she gets confused with Mary I quite a lot. Probably best to avoid confusing the issue further. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Not sure I’m entirely in agreement, as I could see that being the case if each article were styled Mary I, however I am not proposing to change the title of the article - which might result in a situation which you refer to.
In adding the ordinal to the infobox to read Mary I the article infobox then accurately reflects that Mary, Queen of Scots was the first of two individuals called Mary Stuart to reign as Queen of Scots/Scotland. The absence of the ordinal omits to bring that to the reader’s attention and is at odds with other articles on similar subjects.
I wouldn’t expect Wikipedia to omit facts from articles for fear of confusing, but rather present facts in order to inform. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:7579:5088:E1FC:DF5C (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Tend to agree. In fact, the article was previously located at Mary I of Scotland but was moved, after much discussion, in order to satisfy the "common namers". Deb (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
My issue lies not with the article’s location/title - nor do I wish to reopen discussion on that topic.
However, I maintain that the infobox should read Mary I in order that it accurately reflect that Mary, Queen of Scots was the first of two individuals called Mary Stuart to reign as Queen of Scots/Scotland. The absence of the ordinal omits to bring that to the reader’s attention and is at odds with other articles on similar subjects.
I doubt very much that it’s inclusion in the infobox will confuse readers in respect of a monarch of England, Mary Tudor, who, unlike Mary Stuart, was the only Tudor monarch of England to bear that name. In mentioning Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, surely an encyclopaedia, in pursuit of the avoidance of confusion, must enable the reader to distinguish readily as to whether such refers to Mary I (1542-1567) or Mary II (1689-1694).
Edit: The articles Henry IV of England and Henry IV of France both show “Henry IV” in the infobox, which is perfectly proper and consistent in dealing with two separate monarchs of two separate kingdoms, with no evidence of confusion being an issue nor a need for the ordinal to be omitted from either article. Therefore, surely the same should apply with regard to “Mary I” appearing in the respective infoboxes dealing with two separate monarchs of two separate kingdoms? I am highly sceptical that a possibility for confusion exists in the event that the ordinal is added to the infobox of this article.
2A00:23C6:B808:7701:7579:5088:E1FC:DF5C (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I've tried a few times (in the past) to have Mary I the infobox heading, but was always reverted. Even though Scotland also had a Mary II. Also tended to get reverted when showing her as Mary I in the infoboxes of her father & her son. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
In which case, the approach taken by certain editors to this particular historical figure would appear to me to be highly irregular, in that information from reliable sources is routinely removed for fear of “confusion” (whether real or imagined) with an entirely separate and unrelated historical figure, who is themselves the subject of a separate and unrelated article.
If adopted as a standard across Wikipedia, can you image the carnage such a practice would wreak? If removing factual and verifiable edits to this article is justified, then surely those same arguments could be used justify the editing in a similar vein of Henry IV of France or Henry IV of England, for example, so as to avoid “confusion”. Can you imagine the uproar if I popped over to Henry IV of England and deleted the “IV” from the infobox header and justified my actions on the grounds of avoiding confusion with Henry IV of France? My edit would be reverted instantly and my argument for doing so shot to pieces.
Did you ever seek arbitration following the reverting of your edits to include the ordinal? I don’t want to go over old ground, but previous/ongoing actions taken to exclude the ordinal from the infobox header appear to me to be… (chooses words carefully)… ‘unjustified’. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:7579:5088:E1FC:DF5C (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to Deb for pointing out the old requested move. Having looked at that and doing some rummaging, I'm strongly against inclusion of the ordinal, and even think it should be removed from the first line of the introduction. We don't apply numerals that are not generally in use nor do we pander to Scottish nationalist sentiment. 'Mary I of Scotland' is about as common as 'Elizabeth I of Scotland' in gscholar searches: Mary I of ScotlandElizabeth I of Scotland. We wouldn't put 'Elizabeth I' or 'Elizabeth I and II' in the infobox of Elizabeth II. I don't think we should do it here either. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Wow! Just… wow! That, @CeliaHomeford, was enlightening - but not for reasons you might suspect.
Puting to one side your assumptions/accusations of a political nature and veiled threats to undertake to vandalise the article’s lede, which are in themselves outrageous, your attempt to cloud the issue with references to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is nonsensical, as I am sure you are well aware that the issue surrounding the ordinal number of that former monarch of the UK during the early days of her reign was resolved under Churchill’s convention, and remained Elizabeth II.
Aside from that irrelevant detour, this article concerns a former monarch of the Kingdom of Scotland, (and Kingdom of France), for which there is no issue surrounding the ordinal number, other than its continued and unexplained absence from the heading of the infobox of the article concerned.
When sources including, for example, the government body whose “purpose is to collect, preserve and produce information about Scotland's people and history and make it available to inform current and future generations” also refers to Mary Queen of Scots as “Mary I (reigned 14 December 1542 to 24 July 1567)” then it is surely right and proper and within the MoS to reflect the correct ordinal number of that monarch in the infobox header as “Mary I” - particularly given that her Great-Great-Grandaughter, also Mary Stuart, reigned as “Mary II”.
@CeliaHomeford - I was reluctant to go down this road, but following comments by GoodDay on his/her experience, coupled with your last contribution, I now get the distinct impression that there may be editors lurking on this article who seek to prevent the inclusion of the correct ordinal in the infobox as a result of an Anglocentric attitude which manifests itself as an attempt to restrict any reference to “Mary I” exclusively to that of Mary Tudor, a.k.a Mary I of England, regardless of any other monarchs of any other kingdoms who by coincidence bear the same regal name and ordinal number. Is my impression of the presence of an Anglocentric attitude correct? Your last contribution certainly lends weight to it… 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:7579:5088:E1FC:DF5C (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
We don't pander to English nationalist sentiment either. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, nor would I expect to find the sort of crude “English nationalist sentiment” one might find in the stands of Wembley Stadium, for example, being extolled by anyone in these pages. English exceptionalism however is a far more subtle creature, quite capable of finding a bower within the red, white and blue folds of a Union Flag…
Returning to the issue at hand, a convention exists whereby in the event that the regal name of a monarch of a specific realm is repeated throughout the course of that realm’s history, an ordinal number is employed to distinguish each from the other. This is not in dispute.
In respect of Wiki articles concerning monarchs, a convention exists whereby the associated ordinal number of that monarch, with few exceptions, (William the Conqueror for example), appears in the heading of the infobox. This is not in dispute.
As noted above in an earlier post, this convention also applies to articles where the title makes no mention of an ordinal number, in William the Lion for example. This is not in dispute.
This convention similarly applies where the monarch of a particular realm shares a regal name and ordinal number with a separate and unrelated monarch, for example Henry IV of France and Henry IV of England. This is not in dispute.
Organisations which meet the criteria for a reliable source, including a government agency of the country concerned, may adopt the term “Mary I” when referring to Mary Queen of Scots. This is not in dispute.
With respect of the former realm of the Kingdom of Scotland, two individuals by the name of Mary Stuart have held the position of Queen regnant; the first from 1542-1567, the second from 1689-1694. This is not in dispute.
The title of this article is “Mary, Queen of Scots”. This is not in dispute.
What is disputed is the justification, or lack thereof, for the above convention in respect of ordinal numbers appearing on infobox headers not being applied to this article, and that for reasons unspecified this article is considered to be an exception to that convention. Why?
In answering, please refrain from insulting the intelligence of readers of this article and that of Mary I of England. If readers of Henry IV of France and Henry IV of England are capable of distinguishing between the two, despite “Henry IV” appearing in the header of both infoboxes, I am certain that the readers of Mary I of England and Mary, Queen of Scots will likewise have the mental capacity to avoid any confusion, despite the presence of “Mary I” in the header of both infoboxes.
I do not propose to edit-war on the article and am content that a decision be taken via arbitration if necessary. I look forward to contributions to the discussion from the community. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:7579:5088:E1FC:DF5C (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Mobile editor, if you want to insert Mary I into the infobox heading? you've my support. If Scotland had a Mary II? then obviously, they had a Mary I. But, you'll need a consensus from others, first. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Duly noted. It might broaden/inform the discussion if you would care to expand further upon your grounds for supporting the inclusion of the ordinal number in the infobox header, or are you simply applying logic in that for there to have been a Mary II there had to have been a Mary I? 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:7579:5088:E1FC:DF5C (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Exactly how I see it. There were two Scottish queens regnant named "Mary". Also, to erase any doubt in anyone's mind? I'm certainly 'not' a Scottish nationalist or a British nationalist. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you - you might not upset the Scottish/British nationalists in that case, but as a self-proclaimed republican you may be prone to upsetting the royalists and monarchists out there, so tread carefully! (Just kidding). 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:D460:543:80D8:7D87 (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment I still don't understand the reasons for objecting to inclusion of the ordinal. I actually think it would be helpful in reducing the confusion between Mary Stuart and Mary Tudor, which partly results from British people's ignorance of their own history. Deb (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I still await the justifiable reasons for objecting to inclusion of the ordinal. So far, we’ve had a claim of confusion with a separate and unrelated historical figure, although similar scenarios exist elsewhere in Wikipedia articles, presumably as confusion-free zones. We’ve had reference to the title of the article, which is not proposed for change. We’ve had an accusation of Scottish nationalism as being the reason, which is preposterous. We’ve had a reference to Elizabeth II, which is irrelevant, and we’ve had an assertion that the term is not in common use.
On that last and final point, I am not aware of a ‘figure’ or associated ‘bar’ which must be reached or exceeded in that respect in order for a term to be considered ‘common’. Reference was made to Google Scholar, which returns almost 100 hits for Mary I of Scotland/Mary I Queen of Scotland/Mary I Queen of Scots. I’m assuming that if a term was to be found in single figures then that may be an issue, but pushing three figures? Aside from scholarly articles, the term’s use by a government agency of the country concerned would surely satisfy any criteria for a reliable source, in addition to those other reliable sources available online.
Therefore, if any member of the community would like to offer a coherent argument against following the convention for articles concerning monarchs and including the ordinal number 1 in the infobox header as “Mary I” I’d be delighted to hear it. I may even be persuaded to agree with it! 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:7579:5088:E1FC:DF5C (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: In attempting to engage with additional editors I propose to add a reference to the article’s opening sentence at “also known as - Mary I of Scotland” which will link to the National Records of Scotland web page referred to previously. (I hope that adding a link to a reliable source as a reference for an existing element of the article will be uncontroversial - we shall see). In doing so, editors who monitor the article will receive notification of the edit, and the associated remarks will refer them to this discussion. Editors who are against the inclusion of the ordinal number in the infobox header might then enlighten/persuade those of us who are in favour as to why MQoS should be an exception to the convention which applies to articles concerning monarchs. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:D460:543:80D8:7D87 (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)  Done 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:D460:543:80D8:7D87 (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote and in order to move the process along, propose moving to establishing consensus, or lack thereof, by 10/10/22, with a 7 day window to vote to the proposal:

“To include the ordinal number in the infobox header, as per the convention on similar articles, to read “Mary I””

Please continue the discussion above this section . 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:D460:543:80D8:7D87 (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Above what section? GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Apologies…above the “Proposal” section/paragraph.2A00:23C6:B808:7701:508B:990E:B913:F285 (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

STRAW POLL CLOSED

Please sign below to indicate your opinion with regard to the following proposal:

”To include the ordinal number in the infobox header, as per the convention on similar articles, to read “Mary I” .”

(Poll closes on October 17, 2022)

OPPOSE
  1. The opening comment says "convention on similar articles". Well, I've just visited the first five articles on list of Scottish monarchs: no numeral, no numeral, no numeral, no numeral, no numeral. There's no convention for numerals here. Just like the first 3 of the articles I've listed here, she occasionally is given a numeral but she usually is not. DrKay (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  2. Per DrKay. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  3. 'Mary I of Scotland' is about as common as 'Elizabeth I of Scotland' in gscholar searches: Mary I of ScotlandElizabeth I of Scotland. We wouldn't put 'Elizabeth I' or 'Elizabeth I and II' in the infobox of Elizabeth II. I don't think we should do it here either. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
SUPPORT
  1. Response to “Oppose 1.” - You listed “five” articles as examples of those without ordinal numbers, yet the names Giric and Aed (Áed mac Cináeda) do not appear to repeat themselves in the form of regal names, therefore why would they have ordinal numbers in the article infobox? A ”convention on similar articles” exists in as much that 32 of the 36 monarchs on list of Scottish monarchs who have an associated ordinal number, have their ordinal number appear in the infobox header. (Let alone those monarchs of other realms, which I have no intention of counting, but whose ordinal number likewise appears in the article’s infobox heading). Response to “Oppose 3.” - Sorry, but that’s an attempted “Straw man” or a misunderstanding of the proposal. There was never an “Elizabeth I of Scotland” as dual ordinals were only used during the period 1603-1707 (1702), and no monarch of Great Britain, or subsequently the UK, has ever used such.[1] Mary I of Scotland (1542-1567) and Mary II of Scotland (1689-1694) were both pre-Union (1707) monarchs of the Kingdom of Scotland, Elizabeth II of the UK (1952-2022) was a post-Union (1801) monarch of the United Kingdom and therefore irrelevant to this proposal. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:508B:990E:B913:F285 (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

    2A00:23C6:B808:7701:508B:990E:B913:F285 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    …Relevance? Whatever happened to “Wikipedia:Assume good faith”? 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:508B:990E:B913:F285 (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  2. Can't confuse her with the Tudor Mary, on her own bio page :) GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  3. If someone is looking for Mary I Tudor. I am sure they wouldn't have clicked on a link that said "Mary, Queen of Scots". Or see "Queen of Scotland" under her photo. I don't see why Mary should be treated different from any other monarch. If some believe it is an issue, I am all for adding a link to Mary Tudors page, similar to how Tudor's has a link to Scots' (Excuse the poor wording, I don't know the term for 'not to be confused with X' next to the disambiguation links). EmilySarah99 (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  4. This is almost a repeat of an older discussion which occurred at the time the article was moved. I see no reason not to use the ordinal and I think it could help clear up confusion. Deb (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Royal Central; The Problem with Elizabeth II's Regal Number". royalcentral.co.uk. 2020-03-13. Retrieved 2022-10-11.

Conclusion

As “a means to help in determining consensus”, it would be fair to conclude that the Straw Poll suggests such does not exist in respect of the proposed change. It would also be fair, (happy to be otherwise informed), to conclude that a compromise position is unlikely - the ordinal number is either included in the infobox header, or it is not.

As a means of achieving some form of resolution, I would propose progressing to the next stage “by soliciting an outside opinion”.

Any objections/suggestions? 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:2D1C:EAFC:4420:5F89 (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Next steps

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mary,_Queen_of_Scots

2A00:23C6:B808:7701:E8C5:7383:9B84:E222 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion has since moved to Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots/RFC on Number. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

RFC on Regnal Number in Infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The numbers are approximately equal so there is no consensus to include the regnal number at the top of the infobox. Gusfriend (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Should the regnal number I be included at the top of the infobox, so that the caption will be Mary I? GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Enter Yes or No with a brief explanation in the Survey. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion is permitted in the Discussion section.

Survey

Discussion

User:DrKay… In recycling spurious comparisons with regal titles which never existed, are you deliberately trying to confuse matters in order to try to justify your opposition? As a participant in previous discussions, surely you are aware that online references to “Elizabeth I of Scotland” concern the unsuccessful nationalist campaign in the early years of Elizabeth II’s reign (and revived albeit briefly by Winnie Ewing), to prevent her from using the ordinal number “II” in Scotland. There was never an “Elizabeth I of Scotland” at any time in Scotland’s history, or can you provide reliable sources to the contrary? 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:57A:94E1:E11:2B29 (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I already did. DrKay (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Where? I must have missed the reliable source stating that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor adopted “Elizabeth I of Scotland” amongst her various styles and titles. Perhaps you would be kind enough to repeat it below. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:57A:94E1:E11:2B29 (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Huh? You do know Mary, Queen of Scots, never in her lifetime adopted the numeral I among any of her titles and styles? It's an innovation by others, just like Elizabeth I. DrKay (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
So why is it okay to use it in retrospect for Elizabeth I and not for Mary I? And why is it okay to use it for Mary I of England (who didn't use that title in her lifetime) and not for Mary I of Scotland? Deb (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Already explained. Try reading instead of responding. DrKay (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I’m reluctant to mention the following for fear of prolonging this muddying of the waters, but just to point out that James VI & I actually used the regal numeral “I” during his lifetime. (Can I invite DrKay to consult ”Expectations of Adminship” before responding, thank you). 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:9537:FC6B:A8B3:1ECD (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
You are muddying the waters by introducing a straw man that is not contentious and raising a completely unrelated behavioural guideline. This RfC isn't about me or my behavior. You need to go to other venues for issues about contributors. DrKay (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Fret not re. “other venues”. On the subject of “straw men” and matters “not contentious”, I noted your recent edit to your objection/contribution at the now closed Straw Poll, where presumably in an effort to add weight to your argument you added articles to your list of those not having ordinal numbers in the infobox header by including articles of monarchs whose names only appear once at List of Scottish monarchs, and which in respect of modern regnal lists would not therefore have an associated ordinal number. Curious… 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:9537:FC6B:A8B3:1ECD (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
You are mistaken. My last substantive edit to the straw poll was on 10 October, more than a month ago, when it was still open [9]. It is unfortunate that at least two editors have sought to influence the debate by making incorrect statements about me. Statements about me do not belong in this discussion, even when they are true. They certainly do not belong when, as in this case, they are false. They should be struck out. DrKay (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Talking of matters requiring to be “struck out”, your survey contribution above continues to link to three sources which, presumably, are there to support your assertion that “Mary I of England and Mary I of Scotland are frequently confused”. As an admin who regularly edits history-related articles, particularly historical royals, taken at face value that’s a weighty contribution to make to the debate. However, as I pointed out at length below but which you have conveniently ignored, on closer inspection these links have nothing to do with confusion in respect of ordinal numbers, as your “Mary I of England and Mary I of Scotland are frequently confused” would suggest, but rather with “Mary Queen of Scots and Bloody Mary” - NOT THE TERMS WHICH YOU HAVE STATED “are frequently confused”. Yet here we are, and despite my pointing out your presumably unintended linking of articles which, on closer inspection, do not support your assertion, the assertion persists. Curious… 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:D9C4:151C:25F0:A87A (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
A valid point, but the reliable source for “Elizabeth of Scotland” as one of her late majesty’s styles and titles please. College of Arms, Lyon Court, Hansard? 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:57A:94E1:E11:2B29 (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
You mean apart from the ones you added, when you were still using your account?[10][11] DrKay (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
One line in a single speech by a politician? I was hoping you’d find something more substantive, but I think we both know that isn’t likely, because despite the best efforts of Sir David Steel, it’s not a title which she adopted, inherited, was granted, awarded or was used in any sense. One instance does not make a generality or a trend. Any others? 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:57A:94E1:E11:2B29 (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I've already linked to 39 above. Stop wasting everyone's time. DrKay (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I’ve seen your 39. Of those, did you check how many related to the failed campaign by the nationalists? You can judge their success by the numbers of pillar boxes in Scotland bearing the cypher “ER”, as opposed to “EIIR” - there are precisely zero, (of either), by the way. When he assumes the title William V, if I start an online campaign to have him be known as William IV in Scotland, will that make it so, simply because I and a few others may say it and a few dozen ghits turn up as a result? Of course not. As for “wasting everyone’s time”… one word… “Elizabeth”. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:57A:94E1:E11:2B29 (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is this RFC not taking place on the BLP's talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:GoodDay - Because you, GoodDay, tried to fix something that wasn't broken, not knowing what you were doing. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I believe you may be correct. I may have kicked the football, before it was put in place. GoodDay (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
User:DrKay and others, "Do not reply to other editors in the Survey" means do not reply to other editors in the Survey. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

DrKay, in my summary proposing the change to the infobox header, I touched upon the issue of confusion, but couched my terms in a manner which I hope would not to give the impression of “fact” where I was unable to provide reliable sources to support such. Specifically I state “without any apparent confusion”. I would hope that the use of the term “apparent” would be sufficient to avoid any inference that there were reliable sources citing empirical research to support that statement. In your summary opposing the change to the infobox header, you also touch upon the issue of confusion, but your statement reads “Mary I of England and Mary I of Scotland are frequently confused”. In my opinion, that statement reads as fact, and links to three external sources:

  • History with Henry This author states “Is Bloody Mary, Mary Queen of Scots? This is a question that I see all over the internet”. Firstly, and no disrespect to “Henry”, I’m not sure of his credentials as to a “reliable source”, therefore I can only take Henry’s opinion as opinion, not fact. Secondly, Henry’s argument does not appear to concern ordinals but rather the term “Bloody”, which having read his piece would suggest that the bloody execution by means of beheading of Mary, Queen of Scots, leads some, according to Henry, to think that the term “Bloody Mary” refers to Mary, Queen of Scots and not Mary Tudor, a.k.a Mary I of England. Henry does not touch upon any aspect of confusion over the ordinal number, therefore please feel free to remove the link to ‘History with Henry’ as it is not relevant to the ordinal.
  • Quora: “Are Mary Queen of Scots and Bloody Mary the same?” A “global online platform for asking questions and providing answers”, Quora is a depository for any number of weird and wonderful queries, for example ”Do aliens really exist?, “Did the Mafia kill JFK, etc. Again, this doesn’t necessarily meet the criteria for “reliable”. Furthermore, the link again concerns apparent confusion over the term “Bloody”, (as per Henry’s website), and not the ordinal. Therefore once again, please feel to remove the link to “Quora” as it is not relevant to the ordinal.
  • Elizabethan England Life is a website whose author, (Prasad Mahabal), has an M A in “Science and Technological Developments in Ancient Civilizations” and is a self confessed “anglophile who loves English history and culture and likes writing about it”. This website includes a statement by the author that “Mary I, Queen of England (Mary Tudor) is sometimes confused with Mary, Queen of Scots”, which is the opinion of the author. However, once again the author, as per Henry and Quora, takes us to “bloody’: “Why was Mary Queen of Scots called Bloody Mary? Are Mary Queen of Scots and Bloody Mary the same? No, they are different people. Queen Mary I of England is the bloody Mary.” So once again, the issue surrounds apparent confusion over the term “bloody”, and not the ordinals. Once again, please feel free etc. etc.

I cannot dispute anyone’s opinion that confusion may exist or sometimes exists between the two Marys, as I have no facts with which to refute such, but your statement, (together with the above links), reads as fact. Firstly, we should avoid presenting opinion as fact, and secondly the issue here surrounds the ordinal number and not confusion, whether actual or inferred, resulting from the term “Bloody Mary” being wrongly attributed to Mary, Queen of Scots. In my opinion, the inclusion of the ordinal number in the infobox header will have zero net effect over the confusion described by your links. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:9537:FC6B:A8B3:1ECD (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


(New comment)

Celia Homeford. Your comment above that “calling her Mary I in articles where there is another person called Mary I is frankly foolish” intrigues me. What do you suggest we do to resolve the “frankly foolish” situation whereby Henry IV of England, Henry IV of Castile, Henry IV of France and Henry IV of the Holy Roman Empire all refer to “Henry IV” despite three other articles existing where there is another person called “Henry IV”? (In addition to the main body of text, “Henry IV” appears in the infobox header, as per the proposal here for “Mary I”). Despite multiple separate individuals from separate kingdoms sharing the same regal name and ordinal number throughout history, why would it be “foolish” for “Mary I” to appear in the infobox header of just two articles, when “Henry IV” appears without apparent objection in the infobox header of four articles? 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:9537:FC6B:A8B3:1ECD (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

They should be disambiguated. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
By the way, it's really not necessary to bludgeon the debate, especially when you have numbers on your side. Give it a rest for a while. I for one am certainly not interested in a protracted discussion of a single digit. For that reason, I avoided the dispute resolution noticeboard. From hints in the discussion, I assume that this is about something deeper, a personal grudge arising from a previous account or a desire to move the article back to Mary I of Scotland. Going to these lengths (extensive discussion, straw poll, dispute resolution, RfC) for a single, unimportant digit is ... extreme. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
But it's probably not a good idea to label other people's opinions "foolish" if you don't want to prolong the debate. Deb (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Rest assured Celia Homeford I have no motive other than to improve the article, albeit as you say, by a single digit, and also find it incredible that editors will go to such lengths to prevent its inclusion. Had I been convinced by any of the arguments presented by those who oppose, then I certainly wouldn’t still be here. But here we are… because, as in the case of your “they should be disambiguated”, the reason given applies to article titles, not the infobox header, as is evident by articles concerning “Henry IV”, where there is no requirement to disambiguate an infobox header. Regards… 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:9537:FC6B:A8B3:1ECD (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
They should be disambiguated within the same article, so that it's clear which is being referred to at any point. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Surely, the article title would be self evidently sufficient in order to distinguish the individuals being referred to - as per the four articles concerning Henry IV? 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:8DAE:3FC5:6D46:993E (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
So, when I write "John of Gaunt was the great-grandfather of Henry IV" and later on in the same article "John of Gaunt was the great-grandfather of Henry VI", and later still "Henry VI's grandfather was Henry IV", you think that's all "self evident" and no further disambiguation is necessary? You really think no-one who reads those sentences will be confused? If I write, "In Scotland, James VI and I was preceded by Mary I, who was preceded by James V. While in England, James VI and I was preceded by Elizabeth I, who was preceded by Mary I." You really think no disambiguation within the article is necessary, because it's "self evident" to whom I refer? Disambiguation within the same article is obviously necessary. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
My point is simply if the four articles which concern Henry IV of England, Henry IV of Castile, Henry IV of France and Henry IV of the Holy Roman Empire can coexist, with “Henry IV” appearing in each infobox header and presumably sufficient disambiguation within each article’s title and content so as not to confuse the reader, why do you not agree that the same should be possible for Mary, Queen of Scots and Mary I of England were they also to show “Mary I” in the infobox header? What is so unique about Mary I versus Henry IV where the infobox header is concerned? (Again, I stress there is no desire to change any article title). 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:D9C4:151C:25F0:A87A (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
We don't apply numerals that are not generally in use. Perhaps you missed the last 3 times I said this?[12][13][14] No, of course you didn't, because you replied each time[15][16][17], just like you reply every time anyone posts anything. See Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
”Not generally in use” you say? Thanks to your kindly steering me around the intricacies of ghits and how to pin down a number, we established about 840 ghits for MQoS as “Mary I” and about 100 gscholar hits for the same, agreed? Therefore, given your not taking me up on explaining “what is so unique about Mary I versus Henry IV where the infobox is header is concerned”, can we discount confusion as the issue and concentrate instead upon “generally in use”. Where is the benchmark for “generally in use” which might, for example, explain where a term which shows about 840 ghits and about 100 gscholar hits falls short? (PS Sorry to be a pain… Having read the field guide to ‘bludgeoning’, I’ll leave you all to it…) 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:D9C4:151C:25F0:A87A (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't. You should always write "Mary I of Scotland" and "Mary I of England" where there is any likelihood of confusion. You should always write "Henry VI of England" and "Henry IV of England" - and that's how articles were titled until a group of people decided that English kings are immediately recognisable by their numeral. Deb (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
In an earlier discussion concerning the proposed inclusion of the ordinal number in the infobox header for MQoS, an editor informed me that my edit would be confusing as “she gets confused with Mary I quite a lot”. It simply never occurred to that editor that their “Mary I” was not the same individual as my “Mary I”. There appeared to be an assumption that any discussion of “Mary I” automatically defaults to Mary I of England / Mary Tudor / Bloody Mary and a lack of appreciation that other nationalities use this site who may not share the same history/historical perspective. The assumption on my part was that the “English” in “English Wikipedia” only referred to the language. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:D9C4:151C:25F0:A87A (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Posted for info, without comment:

I could go on… 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:D9C4:151C:25F0:A87A (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary,_Queen_of_Scots/Archive_2&oldid=1221509262"